cmis_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the query language and default target. It does not explain behavior such as how max_results is applied, whether results are truncated, read-only semantics, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral expectations unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the key mechanism ('CMIS SQL syntax') and the default behavior. It contains no filler, though the brevity leaves room for more useful guidance without harming conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the large set of sibling search tools, the absence of usage differentiation is a significant gap. The description also does not mention result handling, result limits, or how this search relates to other repository tools. Despite having an output schema, an agent still lacks enough context to know when this tool is the right choice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that cmis_query uses CMIS SQL syntax and defaults to PDF documents via the schema's default value. The max_results parameter receives no explanation at all, and the description does not go beyond what the parameter name and default values already suggest.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a resource/method ('CMIS SQL syntax'), and it mentions the default query targets PDF documents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like search_content, advanced_search, or search_by_metadata, leaving some differentiation to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, so an agent must guess when CMIS SQL is appropriate compared to search_content, advanced_search, or search_by_metadata.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.